In reply to RevRico:
The people who design trains don't always do a great job.
In reply to RevRico:
The people who design trains don't always do a great job.
volvoclearinghouse wrote:GameboyRMH wrote: The energy density of batteries isn't yet enough to give something as big as a train enough range. Similar to the big rig problem, but at an even greater scale.Trains don't need no stinkin' batteries. Trains do this:
Well yes, but this being in the context of electric cars, I figured we were talking about battery-powered trains.
alfadriver wrote: To me, the best hope are fuel cells.
Which are also technically EV's. But I agree, hydrogen is probably the best hope for transitioning from fossil fuels. Since hydrogen fuel cells emit nothing and only requires energy to be produced, it shoves the onus of the clean/renewable energy problem onto the power grid, where that problem can be more easily and efficiently solved.
In reply to GameboyRMH:
A better idea than autonomous trains! I suspect range would be a very large issue. A lot of trains are diesel/electric hybrids, and lots of smaller subways are third rail electric already, but for long haul freight, it probably doesn't work.
Volvo going electric by 2019 New models going electric. will still be producing ice power in older models
tuna55 wrote: In reply to RevRico: The people who design trains don't always do a great job.
We try real hard, but unfortunately, we've as yet been unable to design the stupid out of people.
GameboyRMH wrote: The energy density of batteries isn't yet enough to give something as big as a train enough range. Similar to the big rig problem, but at an even greater scale. The smaller a vehicle is, the better it will work with a lower energy density power source. That's why electric RC cars have been zipping around like flies on crack for decades and practical and affordable EVs are a new thing. As energy density improves, bigger vehicles become practical targets for electrification. Large aircraft will actually be the last because they need the most energy-dense fuel. Also don't forget that there are electric trains that run on grid power, like every subway train. As to why there are no autonomous trains, it's not a matter of it not being possible, it's that it makes sense to have a person supervising such a huge and dangerous machine (on-site, in case of comms failure). There are a few fully autonomous commuter trains. Human-driven trains are already semi-autonomous - they can be given signals to stop automatically, obey speed limits etc.
With this premise, the real question is why there are not super affordable electric lawn mowers.
In reply to tuna55:
Actually, in Europe, electric freight trains are not uncommon.
maschinenbau wrote:alfadriver wrote: To me, the best hope are fuel cells.Which are also technically EV's. But I agree, hydrogen is probably the best hope for transitioning from fossil fuels. Since hydrogen fuel cells emit nothing and only requires energy to be produced, it shoves the onus of the clean/renewable energy problem onto the power grid, where that problem can be more easily and efficiently solved.
Hydrogen fuel has a huge number of serious problems that make batteries look like an easy and cheap solution. Most people aren't aware of these problems. Check out my post in this thread.
tuna55 wrote: With this premise, the real question is why there are not super affordable electric lawn mowers.
These prices aren't bad. The corded models are super-affordable, and they're not much trouble for mowing a small yard.
GameboyRMH wrote: 2040? That's more like closing the door behind internal combustion vehicles. Very few people will be DD'ing anything with an ICE by then.
I don't see that happening unless in that time commercially available reasonably priced batteries suddenly end up with the safety, power density, and charge time approaching or exceeding that of a jug of liquid hydrocarbons. Which has been the stumbling block with electric cars for over 100 years at this point. More likely we'll just be feeding ICE vehicles with something synthetic and carbon neutral, that's possible with today's tech (or yesterday's tech for that matter) given cheap enough energy (probably nuclear).
snailmont5oh wrote: Also, 70 years ago, we were all supposed to be driving flying cars, and we were supposed to have figured out what to do with nuclear waste, other than bury it. It looks like progress wasn't as fast as they thought.
We know what to do with nuclear waste - low level waste (clothing, etc) can be safely burned, high level waste can be reprocessed. We don't do this because ZOMG BURNING for low level, and reprocessing looks a lot like refining to make bombs, which tends to make other countries edgy. So, for political reasons, we bury it.
volvoclearinghouse wrote: I'll take your bet. You say: 2027- 1/2 of new car sales (by volume) will be something other than ICE. I'll bet you they won't be. What should the wager be? How about a tank of gas (or charge of electrons) for the winner's car?
I'd wager a charge for the EV of the future, or a tank of gas for today's average car, adjusted for inflation...who knows what gas could cost 10 years from now!
In reply to tuna55:
Sub $300 li-on push mowers have been getting better, maybe a generation away from being truly good gas replacements. I'm not sure about riders though, I've never thought to look.
I think here in America we forget just how large we are geographically compared to countries in Europe, and it can affect our judgement. We also forget about other large and more populous countries.
India, China, parts of South America, are just turning into growing markets and consumers of ICE vehicles, and cannot afford the infrastructure to switch after just catching up. Some places its just not feasible at all that internal combustion would go away without massive cash influxes, like mountain passes or seasonal roadways.
I'll be 30 soon, and I don't think I'll live to see a time when there are not internal combustion motors on the roadways in America.
And vch, thank you for that explanation. I always forget about lawyers.
GameboyRMH wrote:tuna55 wrote: With this premise, the real question is why there are not super affordable electric lawn mowers.These prices aren't bad. The corded models are super-affordable, and they're not much trouble for mowing a small yard.
Sorry, lawn tractor.
I want to be mowing my lawn for as little time as humanly possible.
BrokenYugo wrote:GameboyRMH wrote: 2040? That's more like closing the door behind internal combustion vehicles. Very few people will be DD'ing anything with an ICE by then.I don't see that happening unless in that time commercially available reasonably priced batteries suddenly end up with the safety, power density, and charge time approaching or exceeding that of a jug of liquid hydrocarbons. Which has been the stumbling block with electric cars for over 100 years at this point. More likely we'll just be feeding ICE vehicles with something synthetic and carbon neutral, that's possible with today's tech (or yesterday's tech for that matter) given cheap enough energy (probably nuclear).
They only need somewhere around the safety of a jug of liquid hydrocarbons (doable), about 1/3rd the power density at most (since about 2/3rds of the energy in gasoline goes out the radiator), and charge time is actually not that important since you can leave home with a "full tank" every morning. Today's charge speeds might be good enough already.
I think that if there were carbon-neutral gasoline available, it would only buy a decade or so for ICEs. EVs also have performance, NVH, and reliability benefits that would encourage people to switch over.
tuna55 wrote: Sorry, lawn tractor. I want to be mowing my lawn for as little time as humanly possible.
Like an electric car or motorcycle, it costs more up front, but it never needs gas...
http://www.homedepot.com/p/Ryobi-38-in-Battery-Electric-Riding-Lawn-Mower-RY48110/300246266
GameboyRMH wrote:maschinenbau wrote:Hydrogen fuel has a huge number of serious problems that make batteries look like an easy and cheap solution. Most people aren't aware of these problems. Check out my post in this thread.alfadriver wrote: To me, the best hope are fuel cells.Which are also technically EV's. But I agree, hydrogen is probably the best hope for transitioning from fossil fuels. Since hydrogen fuel cells emit nothing and only requires energy to be produced, it shoves the onus of the clean/renewable energy problem onto the power grid, where that problem can be more easily and efficiently solved.
Lol. Neither of our obstacles have changed in any of the discussions.
We will just have to see what happens.
Personally, I don't see a path for pure batteries or fuel cells as a whole fleet replacement in my lifetime.
There will be many forms of hybrids that are more likely.
Personally I don't think it's an issue.
Volvo is going to have no ICE only cars by 2020 and Ford has pledged an electric F150 and Mustang (though I think they may be hybrids) at the same time. The infrastructure is going to need to be updated to handle the electric load and there will need to be some agreed upon standard for charging and energy storage but that's not really insurmountable. There will need to be some localized storage though.
The big question is how long hybrids are going to hang around for and if they're going to use biofuels which should be able to use existing petrol infrastructure. Say what you will but unless someone has an option besides "Cambridge Crude" charging takes a lot more time for long distance hauls than a gas station does.
France is looking to move away from Coal and LNG to nuclear, they're already 70% nuclear, and renewables for it's grid, so I doubt they'll have an issue with power.
RevRico wrote: India, China, parts of South America, are just turning into growing markets and consumers of ICE vehicles, and cannot afford the infrastructure to switch after just catching up.
On the other hand, if they build the correct infrastructure in the first place, they wouldn't have to build a second one after building and dismantling the first.
To get back to David's question, I don't see it happening in the US at the Federal level - too much lobbying by Big Oil here - but I wouldn't be surprised if some large cities like New York and San Francisco put limits on in-city ICE use.
The challenge in the US - range of 300-400 miles with a refresh of another 300-400 mile range within, say, 20-30 minutes.
GameboyRMH wrote:tuna55 wrote: Sorry, lawn tractor. I want to be mowing my lawn for as little time as humanly possible.Like an electric car or motorcycle, it costs more up front, but it never needs gas... http://www.homedepot.com/p/Ryobi-38-in-Battery-Electric-Riding-Lawn-Mower-RY48110/300246266
Admittedly that's better than I saw in the past, but still doublish the cost.
My guess is that this is a bit of politician theater. Calling for one thing, but setting the timeframe so far in the future that it isn't the current government's problem if it doesn't pan out and the rule gets repealed.
RevRico wrote: In reply to volvoclearinghouse: Ok, I'm curious. Yesterday's conversation where I brought up big rigs, I was thinking about trains too. The rails are already there, the trains are already there. Why don't we have more electric or autonomous trains?
In North America, generally because of the expense of adding the overhead caternary wires. They're practical in some areas with high population density like the Northeast Corridor.
I predict the first ban on ICE's in the U.S. will come from berkeley. Because berkeley it. I just wanted to type berkeley.
The second will be in the People's Republic of Boulder CO.
I'll also refer to alfadriver for expert opinions on this, because he works in the industry and is......well, an expert. 
You'll need to log in to post.
